Thoughts on Gun Control

There is an idea for a reform of gun control laws that has been percolating in my brain for some time. I think it’s about time I throw it out there in case anyone else thinks it would be an improvement over our current system. However, I strongly suspect that both the NRA and gun control advocates would have a problem with it.

I will describe my idea first, than go into detail about my rational.

The Federal Government should preempt all state and local gun control laws. All firearms must be registered with the Federal Government and guns may be sold only to persons with a Federal permit. All gun sales must be recorded with the Federal Government. Anyone transferring a firearm without following these requirements is civilly and criminally liable if the firearm is used illegally.

Any citizen of at least 21 years of age, without a criminal record or history of mental illness, may carry a concealed firearm provided they pass a gun training and safety course.

It might seem, contradictory that the states with the strictest gun control laws tend to have more violent crime than states where it is easier to own and carry a gun legally. The District of Columbia has the strictest gun control laws in the country and is one of the most violent cities. Criminals have no trouble getting a gun in D.C. A huge reason for this is because Virginia has some of the least strict gun laws. People legally allowed to purchase guns in Virginia, buy them and sell them to people who are not allowed to buy guns. Because guns can practically, if not legally, flow easily over state lines, any gun control regime needs to be national in order to be effective.

Many gun rights supporters object to a national gun registry. They believe, perhaps correctly, that the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution so that an oppressive national government could not disarm the people and that the people could therefore overthrow an oppressive government. Whether you agree with this analysis or not, clearly many people object to a national gun registry. But these people would certainly approve of law abiding citizens being able to carry a gun in New York City or Washington, D.C.

The argument against making it easier for people to own and carry guns is that people who have guns are more likely to use them. Domestic violence is more likely to lead to homicide if a gun is in the house. A traffic accident could lead to a gunfight in the street. It will easier for a young person to get access to weapons for a Columbine/Virginia Tech/Illinois State University type spree.

The argument on the other side is the experience of states like Texas and Florida where a fender bender does not normally devolve into the gunfight at the Ok Corral. It is also argued that concealed carry laws protect people from violent crime, even if they themselves do not carry a weapon. Because criminals will not know who is carrying a concealed weapon, they may be less likely to prey on anyone.

As for spree shooters, who do often obtain weapons legally, it is argued that spree shooters would be stopped sooner by armed civilians. This was the case with the Appalachian Law School Shootings where two students used their personal weapons to subdue the shooter and the Colorado Church shootings where the gunman was stopped when he was wounded by a volunteer security guard.

Whether you agree with this argument or not, what I ask you is this: Would the system I propose be superior to the system we have today?